Month: January 2015

My biggest criticism of my representative John Boehner over the years is that he has been too soft on President Obama. The current president is obviously engaged in a power grab and has been pushing conservatives around for years without a proper response. Speaking from personal experience the best way to deal with a bully is to push back when they push you, and Obama is simply a bully when it comes to radicalism and advocating his points of view. Largely Boehner, obviously respectful of the presidency in a way befitting royalty, has let the president push him and his congress without fear of retaliation to the point of embarrassment.

Well, it appears that Boehner is finally pushing back a little, now that the Senate has gone to the Republicans, and it’s good to see. It’s about time. It’s also good to see Boehner go on Fox News to talk about the ways that he plans to push back against the encroaching president. Obama has done plenty of speaking to the media from MSNBC to MTV and one of the primary reasons that Boehner’s Congress has such low approval ratings is that the President has out-talked him as the Speaker of the House to the media. Boehner could take advantage of the many conservative talk shows on the radio and television, but really hasn’t much—which is why he has lost over the years to the slick talk of the Democratic socialists and their wealth-redistribution schemes. But that appears to be changing as reported by the below Fox News article speaking about the recent Boehner interview.

WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday that Republicans plan to sue President Obama over his use of executive action on immigration.

“The president’s overreach when he took executive action to deal with the immigration problems in our country, frankly, in my view, is a violation of our Constitution,” Boehner said on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

“We believe that the filing of a lawsuit to try to stop the president from – from violating our Constitution is an important step for our institution,” he added. “This isn’t about immigration. This is the president violating the Constitution, violating his oath of office, and frankly, not upholding the rule of law.”

The move to sue has been seen as an effort to appease conservatives who are upset they may be forced to accept a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that does not include provisions rolling back the president’s executive actions.

Earlier Wednesday, the White House shrugged off Boehner’s threats of a lawsuit.

“House Republicans seem to be relying more and more on the courts these days to challenge the president’s authority,” White House spokesman Eric Shultz said. “We believe that we acted within the full bounds of authority enshrined to the executive branch, and we’ll be defending that.”

Last year, the House moved to sue Obama over his administration’s delayed implementation of the employer mandate in ObamaCare.

In the wide-ranging interview with Baier, Boehner said he wasn’t surprised by the pushback he’s received from inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress.

“The Israeli prime minister can also talk with some expertise about the growing threat of radical Islam,” Boehner said. “We’ve got a serious problem in the world and the president just wants to act like it’s going to just disappear. And so as a co-equal branch of our government, I don’t have any problem at all in doing what I did to invite the prime minister to come to Congress and address those concerns.”

Boehner also discussed hiccups he’s had with the Republican caucus.

“Listen, I was the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party,” he said. “I understand their concerns. I understand their frustrations. But we have a Constitution that we abide by and we’re going to live by.”

When asked why the House would once again hold a vote to repeal ObamaCare, as is planned next week, Boehner said it came down to getting new Republican voices heard.

“We have 47 new members of Congress on the Republican side who have never had the chance to cast their vote to repeal ObamaCare,” Boehner said. “ObamaCare is hurting our economy. It’s hurting the job prospects for millions of Americans. And it’s hurting our whole health care delivery system while at the same time driving up costs for the average American.”

Boehner also said Republicans would offer an alternative to ObamaCare by the end of the congressional session.

“There are three committee chairmen that have the jurisdiction over the health care policy in our country and those three chairmen are working together to craft what we believe would be a better approach with regard to health care for the American people than ObamaCare.”

Of the most important note in that interview was Boehner’s claim to be a co-equal branch of government, which a lot of people apparently don’t know. Obama behaving like a king of some kind has routinely stepped around Congress to implement his plans, so when it came to inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Boehner finally stepped around the president and acted on his own—like he should have.

No politician would dare say it in the light of day for being labeled a conspiracy advocate but Obama’s behavior has been dangerous in regard to Israel. He obviously is sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view and has created an adversarial relationship with Netanyahu consistent to the views of radical Islamic elements. Even when ISIS terrorists have done their worst against the peace and stability of the entire world, Obama has been careful not to call them Islamic terrorists so not to insult Muslims—which is strange behavior. When Christian radicals go too far, most sane Christians will call out the bad behavior as such—as in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church types people. There are plenty of Christians who thought Reverend Fred Phelps was over the top and vile—and they were not afraid to say so. They certainly didn’t make excuses for him the way Obama does with radical Muslims. So what is really going on? Likely, the answer is not a good one.

I think Boehner thought Obama was a decent human being who played golf with him, and considered that the names people like me were calling the president were uncalled for, and the stuff of conspiracy. But any rational person would have to look at the evidence and conclude that there is something really wrong with Obama and his view of the American presidency—and that he has been bullying Republicans around for years—especially John Boehner.

So it’s good to see Boehner starting to stick up for himself, and Republicans in general. At a bare minimum, Obama is a scum bag, liar and history will confirm it. So there is nothing wrong with pushing back against such a person when it is obvious what his intentions are from the White House perspective. There is certainly nothing wrong with bringing Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress to speak without asking Obama if it’s alright. Obama doesn’t ask for permission to do things and routinely bypasses Congress—so the precedent has been set—and Boehner as an equal member of the federal power structure has a right and obligation to do the same. And he finally has—and it’s about time!

As far as Boehner being “Tea Party before there was a Tea Party,” well, there’s room for converts, and people have to live with their decisions in life. If he sees correctly where the wind is blowing from and to, and decides that he wants his sails to be carried by those currents into fate—well, that’s fine. He can believe what he wants. What really matters is what he does and says day to day—and if he suddenly discovers in himself a spine against Obama—then he can call himself a Tea Party guy from now until eternity. Because in his position—Boehner is best prepared to keep the power grabs of the president in check. So we’ll see how long the Tea Party in him lasts. Hopefully, it won’t fade away in the coming months like it usually does. I remain hopeful that Boehner has finally discovered within himself the Marty McFly from Back to the Future. Hopefully he’s finally going to say to Biff—“Hey you, take your damn hands off her.” We’ll see if this time he can actually make a fist.

I was at Barnes and Nobel in West Chester purchasing my usual weekly necessities when I happened to notice the Wall Street Journal behind the counter. It stated “LEFTISTS TAKE OVER GOVERNMENT IN GREECE.” I had to take a minute to consider that severe world problem. As I read it a major snow storm was bearing down on the North East and President Obama was in India back slapping authorities there hoping to open up trade with that nation—for some reason—as if that would solve some major economic hurdle in the United States. I bought the paper and found the following information scrolled upon the pages:

Alkman Granitsas

Updated Jan. 26, 2015 6:17 a.m. ET

ATHENS—Greek voters handed power to a radical leftist party in national elections on Sunday, a popular rebellion against the bitter economic medicine Greece has swallowed for five years and a rebuke of the fellow European countries that prescribed it.

With nearly all votes counted, opposition party Syriza was on track to win about half the seats in Parliament. In the wee hours of the morning, it clinched a coalition deal with a small right-wing party also opposed to Europe’s economic policy to give the two a clear majority.

“Today the Greek people have written history,” Syriza’s young leader and likely new prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, said in his victory speech late Sunday. “The Greek people have given a clear, indisputable mandate for Greece to leave behind austerity.”

That night I watched Fox News Special Report at 6 PM and the Greek tragedy wasn’t covered at all during the entire hour-long episode. I watched the next night and discovered the same apathy. The snow storm sucked up the entire news cycle. CNN covered the story a bit, and Fox News covered the Greek story on other programs to a lesser effect and did an online article about it for their website. Glenn Beck and Alex Jones did some radio on the topic—and MSNBC was dancing in the streets over the news, but certainly didn’t cover the story from the perspective of the extreme negative connotations that are directly implied by the Syriza party. It was the biggest news in the world and nobody was talking about it—relatively speaking.

Essentially Greece voted to default on their debts to Germany and the European Union. The danger is that other countries a few years away from the present Greek situation will follow. It was clear that this is what democracy looks like; when the mob of ignorant masses decide they collectively didn’t want to deal with the ramifications of their austerity measures, that they could just vote against reality in the hopes that the debt would just be wiped away. This is a very dangerous precedent.

Greece spent themesleves into economic ruin with their vast amounts of socialism introduced to their culture without an economy to even begin to support it. The only proper thing for them to do is to tuck up their belt and thin down their financial expectations dramatically. That is what Greece has been doing over the last 5 years, which was originally covered here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom. I said this event would happen even way back then, but I didn’t think the Greeks would be so arrogant to not even pay their bills. After all, they incurred the debt, so they have to be the ones to pay back the obligation. Nobody else is going to pay for it—because they have their own problems. Italy is suffering from nearly the same problem. Spain is as well. France has an openly socialist president who seemed gleefully relieved that the Paris terrorist attacks took the focus of the world off his dismal economy and onto something that people can unite behind—which is terrorism. Greece stated that their reasons for supporting the Syriza party was to restore their sense of national pride. The falseness of their assumption is that eliminating debt through the forgiveness of the lender of the value lost can do that—which is an extremely scary proposal.

The Greek people have lost their way and think that their ability to maintain their pensions, long vacations, and trips to the beach with a lifestyle that is above the means of their GDP will restore their pride when they have essentially filed for bankruptcy against the European Union. This trend will have a domino effect with ever other nation within that union struggling against the same excessive legacy costs from a generation gone by. The youth of Greece does not want to pay for the sins of their parents—and that is why they voted toward communism—and relief of their financial obligations. The same issue is headed for America.

More and more young people are turning toward socialism and communism to give them relief against the massive debt incurred by their parents. Under president Obama the national debt will be $19 trillion on an economy that only produces $17 trillion per year. The path is unsustainable and reckless, and Obama knows it. When 9/11 occurred the national debt was $5.7 trillion and it is presently over $18 trillion in just that very short time. It has grown by over $2 trillion since I first wrote about the Greek financial crises just a few years ago. It is a mess and spiraling out of control in full view of Washington D.C. Obama knows very well how bad the situation is, yet he won’t stop proposing measures that inspire more spending. Because he knows what happens in a democracy and it favors his politics. Not the politics he shows to the world. But the politics he was committed to when he started his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers.

The United States was built to be a republic. It is supposed to vote wise representatives to their state and federal appointments to act as caretakers of the tax payer resources. The quality of those representatives is directly attached to the value of the republic. And the culture that produces those representatives dictates that the voters behave in an intelligent fashion so to preserve the republic. A democracy is where popular elections occur by the masses toward a contest where raw numbers determine the outcome allow for poor quality people to gain power, which erodes value. Obama and the rest of the current Beltway know that as America has eroded away from a republic and more into a democracy that the chosen mode of politics in the future will be the same as there is in Greece currently. When given an option between debt relief and austerity a democracy will choose bankruptcy over paying back the sins of their fathers. So communist sympathizing politicians like Obama know what they are doing. They are purposely toppling our economy right before our eyes to fulfill their promises to the communism popular within intelligentsia circles on college campuses and Marxist fan clubs. The desire for global communism is what is fueling this recklessness. In that respect, because Greece had very little GDP to sustain it, they are the first to hit the communist insurgency. But America is not far behind. For us, it is within a generation to reach the same mark—and it’s by design.

Those same academics are also saying that this situation in Greece will be good for them. How ironic. Clearly a wave is coming; it is hitting Europe as we speak. It is going to wash across the Middle East—also as we speak. It currently has all of Africa under its spell. It has China, presently with the exception of Hong Kong, parts of Malaysia, and Japan. From there it will sweep across old communist Russia and meet in the middle by the Black Sea. Communism within a few short years from this very moment will completely dominate all the land mass from Europe to Asia. Then it will be coming to America and when it arrives it will find a youth in the same situation as modern Greece. And they will vote the same way because nobody wants to pay for the sins of their parents and at over $19 trillion dollars, and a debt of over $60,000 per person, nobody will want to work hard through austerity to communist China to pay all that money back. So they will vote the same socialism/communism that brought Obama to the White House in the first place and it will be too late for historians to say they should have seen it coming. Because the youth will vote in favor of communism—which was always the plan. Democracy will flourish to wipe away capitalism and usher in the darkness of communism—and just like in Greece it will be done to waving red flags and lots of partying. That is what democracy looks like—and it’s coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

You would have thought that the news outlets would have covered this tragedy more vocally, because it is much more serious than a simple snow storm. However, the more I thought about it, the more it was obvious that many in the media are actually hoping that what happened in Greece will in fact happen in America. And unlike a snow storm, it won’t melt away when spring hits. Instead, it will linger for the rest of our days, and will destroy many lives. So for television ratings, such an inevitable destruction is pretty scary if reported correctly. So they stayed away from the story hoping for some miracle that will never come. And even Fox News didn’t have the courage to look at the terrible fate that is before us all. So they just turned toward the next presidential election and a New England snow storm for relief and did as most everyone else is—just looking away and hoping that they won’t be around when the next wave of communism hits. But sadly—they will be. In many ways—its here already.

The best part of the American Sniper film is that it has flushed out the counter insurgents within United States cultures—those who actively work against the ideas established in the Constitution to create an economy based on capitalism, personal freedom, and moral integrity. The popularity of the film has forced opinions to be mirrored against the radicals of American society and display the contrast. One of the typical and less profanity ridden examples of hate against the film is the article shown below from Salon.com–a left leaning publication. It seamlessly combines an attack on the integrity of Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood, and the GOP in general into one dribbling hate fest. Have a look:

Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a[youtuhero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than anguish with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.

But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia– from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mindset.

In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on U.S. gun culture, “Bowling for Columbine. Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directed comments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.

Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.

For many years these types of leftists have attacked the fundamental conservatism of American culture with accusations that silence opinion so not to be labeled in such a hateful manner. Socialist radicals just as they are taking over Europe, the Middle East, and every poverty-stricken nation throughout Africa, India, and China have successfully eroded away opinion against their schemes using the same methods and everywhere but America has it worked. In the United States the leftist strategy is certainly at work, but it has met with considerable resistance particularly from the type of Americans who love their guns, their country and their God. Chris Kyle is a danger to them because it gives those core Americans the knowledge that they are not alone and isolated in their thoughts and provides clarity to the true insurrection by socialist minority forces. These insurgents have been at work for many years as change agents against the American republic trying to force a conversion into a mass driven democracy guided by socialists. American Sniper is the movie of normal Americans, and they have showed up in mass to see it scaring the crap out of those insurgents hoping to remain undetected.

Clint Eastwood has had a battle with these insurgents for many years starting with his Dirty Harry films. Those cop drama movies were all about the changes happening in America through those change agents as Clint Eastwood’s character represented the last vestiges of John Wayne’s patriotism. Critics pushed on Eastwood throughout that series and in each film Dirty Harry addressed those issues. For instance in Magnum Force, the second Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood dealt with the thin line between his character and the vigilantes who were cops who created a secret squad of assassins killing bad guys without any court process. It was essentially an argument between raw conservatism and fascism. In the Enforcer the story dealt with underground communist terrorists similar to the real life Weather Underground. Dirty Harry had a female partner which created conflict in the face to the severe danger being created by radical groups pressured by a political system to hire women to the force just for social satisfaction. In Sudden Impact everyone was against Dirty Harry as the character was forced to step away from the politics surrounding him. At the end of that movie when the killer was found, Eastwood’s character let her go—because there was no justice possible to rectify the situation. By the time the Dead Pool came out—which launched the career of Jim Carry—Dirty Harry was a celebrity just trying to live his life—but circumstances would not allow him to do so. Even with all the feel good publicity expected by Dirty Harry—in the end he had to turn toward raw vigilantism to solve the crime. Eastwood has always answered the leftist critics with his arguments in his most controversial films. He as done plenty of soft, non political films, but Eastwood has always expressed a lot about himself and his views in his movies. His best films are the ones where he is most controversial because the passion of his convictions comes out clearly which is why after all these years—he is still a beloved actor/director. Like a time capsule Eastwood has been there from the beginning and has chronicled the present insurgency in the topics of his films as they happened to our social tapestry.

So it is again with American Sniper which essentially returns to the topic of the very first Dirty Harry film. The fight between Chris Kyle and Mustafa in the film is the same as the one between Dirty Harry and Scorpio. American Sniper is an exploration of evil and what to do with it when you find it. What is the responsibility of America when evil is at their doorstep? That is the question that Eastwood answers in the film. And American audiences like his opinion and have voted with their wallets.

Evil is among us. It is at work and it forces us to look within ourselves to decide what to do with it. It’s not complicated—it’s rather simple. For Chris Kyle, because his upbringing and state heritage gave him the ability to detect evil as viewed by Christian orthodox—he had an advantage over those less fortunate throughout the world. After all, we are lucky to be born in America. It would stink to be born and raised someplace else—but we need not feel guilt about that to the point where we give the value of that benefit away just to make the rest of the world feel better about themselves. The insurgents among us feed off that tendency and make it into a reckless enterprise. Chris Kyle, like many of us are products of our environment—and those of us born on the winning team are lucky to be there. But we have a right to protect that value by projecting it elsewhere so that other little children not born under capitalism and freedom can taste what we love and cherish. If left alone—those other countries become cesspools of evil by default.

So the question remains, is it a higher morality to leave a country like Iraq alone as the terrorist evil there hell-bent on revenge for their arguments with Europe and a conflict that extends back to the Crusades—or should America sweep in to free people from the evil at work behind the broken ideologies of collectivism that is ever-present among the communist driven ISIS currently reeking havoc once again in Iraq upon our departure? Would Iraq be better off or worse off without all the CIA involvement, or the alliances formed due to oil companies in Saudi Arabia? If left alone, the entire Middle East, Israel included, would be a pit of communism and that is the real issue that leftists hate about American Sniper. If the traditional definition of communism is defined as evil because it robes individuals of their ownership and value and surrenders to the collectivism of the mob then it is easy to designate all terrorist activity as evil. They aren’t freedom fighters fighting against institutionalism. They are fighting in favor of institutional religion, politics and economic viability. And that makes them evil.

Evil likes to hide in the masses. Within collectivist systems where the value of the good is robbed to hide the degradation of the bad, evil can flourish—so it prefers collectivism over individualism because it can operate in a concealed fashion. Clint Eastwood made a movie in American Sniper that stares that evil in the face—and the leftists advocating that vile evil don’t like it. So they criticize the film, Chris Kyle, Clint Eastwood and anybody who expresses appreciation for the film hoping to push everyone back into the hole that they have been living in for years allowing evil to flourish. But this time it’s not working. And they are scared—as they should be.

I do happen to know of some organizations in the liberty movement that are funded by the Koch Brothers. I don’t blame those organizations one bit. As I write this Greece has just swept control of their government by extreme leftist socialists so there is a lot of current against logic that funding from conservatives like the Koch Brothers provides to keep those organizations in the fight. There are a lot of left-leaning organizations who fund the efforts of collectivism and what Charles and his brother Dave are doing is just a drop in the bucket compared to the efforts of George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and the labor unions who advance like a disease political collectivism at a maddening pace. But Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom is not one of those organizations backed by the Koch Brothers. As a matter of fact in 2012 I cut all ties to such relationships after my group No Lakota Levy was applying pressure to not fight the good fight as aggressively as I wanted. At the time there were a lot of wealthy people affiliated with me. At no time did we exchange any money or did they do me any favors—and I made sure to keep it that way because when the time came to cut those ties, I could without stopping the fight at hand. So I have a very rigid policy on those kinds of matters. If Charles Koch offered me millions of dollars to do what I’m doing right now with Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom I wouldn’t take a dime of his money, because it might limit my freedom of movement on the battlefield according to my assessment of what needs to be done. So my work and his are vastly independent from each other—yet it isn’t.

I admire Charles Koch as an industrialist. Every day I drive by one of the Koch plants in my neighborhood and I wonder often what American manufacturing would be like if not for the Koch Brothers. They all by themselves are responsible for a vast amount of the wealth created in America and my only regret is that there aren’t twenty or thirty more people just like them. Often what happens to billionaires like Ross Perot, and Bill Gates over time is they go soft as the guilt of their holdings wears on their minds as their testicular fortitude fades a bit with age. For Charles Koch to say what he did at a conference on Saturday January 24, 2015 was quite extraordinary. People in his position don’t often defend themselves or their wealth as a creation of their own making the way he does which is worthy of a highlight. He stated to a packed room in public which ended up in USA Today:

“Americans have taken an important step in slowing down the march toward collectivism, Koch said. “But as many of you know, we don’t rest on our laurels. We are already back at work and hard at it.”

Koch said his vision is of a “society that maximizes peace, civility and well-being;” encourages hard work and ensures free speech and “free markets.”

I currently know a number of people who are considered “wealthy.” Most of the people I think of as friends are certainly in the upper portion of the 1% category. And the thing that drives me nuts about most of them is their susceptibility to the guilt that society applies on them to “share the wealth” they have made for mass consumption. They are obviously smart people because that’s how they obtained wealth in the first place. The people I know did not acquire their wealth the way typical Santa Monica or New York day traders do—like gamblers betting on value and happenstance. They earned their money through a creation process of a new sustainable business and investments in tangible assets. The result is that most of the people I most closely associate with are people of means. I am in a unique position to voice my thoughts about the guilt process that is applied to these types of people because honestly, my passions reside in artistic endeavors. So I don’t put myself in a position to have my tangible assets plucked apart by a flock of social looters—and could care less if I piss off those who believe in wealth redistribution. Much of what I do and say against left-leaning wealth redistribution through collectivism schemes is based on this inside knowledge. I have been on both sides of the fence and I understand extremely well the personalities involved. There is a reason I know mostly wealthy people as friends as opposed to those who believe in wealth redistribution. My values are more aligned with them than the social looter who believes that wealth is a finite resource that is plucked out of the air for equal distribution—and the wealthy are those who have hoarded that value selfishly.

So it does my heart a lot of good when I see those wealthy people fighting back the way I always thought they should. They give power to the social looters when they yield to the voices of radicalism—as I witnessed many times during my No Lakota Levy campaigns where protesting PTA parents threatened boycotts against businesses because they supported lower taxes. It was appalling the types of things that came out of the mouths of the typical levy supporter. But the indiscretions didn’t stop there—I saw the same radicalism from police and fire departments towards friends of mine just over the allocation of tax payer resources. I have heard much about the plush life of the 1% who fights against higher taxes because the belief of the other 99% believes that by taxing the rich that somehow the world will be a better place. The belief of such advocates is raw unfiltered communism disguised by a different name of progressivism. Yet if you took the 99% and gave them all the wealth of the 1% they would squander it away in a few short years because they do not have the same abilities to maintain that wealth.

Wealth in America is created. It is an artistic expression of formulating an idea from inception to profitable construction which directly creates jobs. It is an amazing thing to do—creating wealth—and those who can do it deserve to be honored, not chastised because they have a skill that others don’t have. Hating the wealthy is as ridiculous as hating another person because they are more attractive, or can throw a football further than the average person. The hate of the 99% against the 1% is jealousy and nothing else and the collectivism spawned from that activity is sheer evil. When the wealthy stop producing everyone suffers—mostly the 99%. When the wealthy are given a free canvas to paint upon, they create wonderful things. Tax incentives to a business are like paint to an artist. It gives the fledging entrepreneur more paint to work with—and the opportunity to create better masterpieces.

So to hear Charles Koch defend the right of the creative 1% to stand against the collectivist brutality of the 99% is 100% correct. Good for him. Instead of feeling guilty for his wealth the way Bill Gates does, and philanthropists like George Soros who is one of those scheming day traders—Koch is fighting to defend the system that he uses to create wealth, jobs, and products that make the world better off—and its about time.

Over the weekend I went to Wal-Mart with my wife, which is a rarity for me, because I don’t care much for crowds and chaos. A trip to Wal-Mart usually encompasses both. While there I couldn’t help but think of the recent attempts to unionize the popular retailer and consider the vast wealth of the Walton family. The Walton family is among the richest families in the world. Their wealth inherited from Bud and Sam Walton, founders of the world’s largest retailer, Walmart is extraordinary.[1] The three most prominent living members (Jim, Rob and Alice) have consistently been in the top ten of the Forbes 400 since 2001, as were John (d. 2005) and Helen (d. 2007) prior to their deaths. Christy Walton took her husband John’s place after his death.

Collectively, the Waltons own over 50% of the company, and are worth a combined total of $175 billion (as of January 2015).[2] In 2010, six members of the Walton family had the same net worth as either the bottom 28% or 41% of American families combined (depending on how it is counted).[3]

That vast wealth created by the Walton family is providing low-cost goods to a huge demographic population in America and providing jobs to China that would not exist otherwise. They created wealth and on a typical Saturday afternoon the reason is on full display. Without the Walton family endeavors Wal-Mart would not exist and the people shopping there would be forced to pay 20% to 30% more for average items. Wal-Mart because of its vast purchasing power forces retailers to lower their prices which of course drive the entire market value down—a gift to the so-called “middle-class” and poor. Without that power, everything would be much more expensive and it would be unlikely that average homes could even hope to afford a flat screen 47” television. But these days, it would be difficult to find the home of a technically poor person that doesn’t have at least one such television. Thank the Walton family for enriching American society to such a vast extent, and they are not obligated in any way to “share” that wealth with any wealth redistribution scheme—because typical people will blow through the money like water over Niagara Falls. All the wealth in the world would be gone within a few years if given to the collectivism of the masses.

It’s about time that the wealthy start defending themselves and not feeling guilty about a $500 meal out at night with friends, or a round of golf at a posh country club. They should not feel bad because of a nice new car that is valued at $100,000 after installed options. Because they earned it in the same way that artists earned critical praise for a fine work painted upon a canvas. Building wealth is an art form and the wealthy are artists who build things that didn’t exist before their influence. I am happy to hear Charles Koch defending that value in public on a large stage knowing that the parasites have targeted him and his brother for years. He knows there will be back-lash over his comments, yet he made them anyway—and good for him. After all, only a handful of people in the world are capable of doing what Charles Koch does for a living. And he deserves to be paid for that productivity accordingly without an ounce of guilt.

Yes, India is mad at me. One of my older articles continues to be one of the most popular as it gets passed around India from computer to computer due to my comments about the ridiculousness of Obama and his worship of the monkey-god Lord Hanuman. Occasionally the comment section on that old article is lively with opinions from the people of India defending their worship of Lord Hanuman. I am usually pretty fair about things unless they get profane. However of late, there has been an interesting resurgence that has been entertaining. For my readers here I am putting a small teaser below along with the link for review. One of the obvious conclusions when reading these comments is that obvious sexual repression comes out in the dialogue, which I brought up with very entertaining results.

I generally feel sorry for the people of India. It’s a dirty place full of ancient reverence from a people generally working an economy dependent on American call centers for their modern jobs. Their social collectivism in India, and passivity have guided them down a path toward economic destruction leaving millions of people desperately poor and turning toward mystics for some sign of hope. For them, Lord Hanuman is something they hope will give them some kind of redemption from their misery. The comment below comes from a guy who was very upset with me—and he wasn’t alone. The anger is that my article called into question the foolishness of any blind dedication to a monkey-god. The comment was full of broken English and profanity and was quite hilarious. You can see it below, when reading this comment think of Apu from the popular cartoon The Simpsons to articulate the voice.

If you don’t consider religious beliefs for to be a good President then why are you writing this stuff against Hindu deity. You fuking morons are the people who fund terrorism. You like to do what you want then write against Christianity right and watch people fuck your ass. Write about ISIS and watch how your penis gets beheaded. You are the people who make Hitler, Osama. ruine world peace. Every bit of Osama’s life was America written and portrayed. You control over every aspect in the world. You erase History and write your own way.You people steal others bread , take innocent lives, and then make movies like Taken to show other countries as third class, fuking mess with religious beliefs except C I really want to fuckin slap u.

Fuking moron Shut up. Nobody here likes ur Omama You Mortar Fucker Shell licker. Through ur Ascaries infested Brain out and write peace. Your comment show how you took a turn when the guy said something about Christianity but rather you like bashing a demon God. You really don’t have privilege to write any religion Hindu, Islam Buddhism. I’m saying this because I’m an Indian . A Hindustani probably Hindu Muslim Buddhist Christian. I believe and practice all religion. White people always play divide and rule . That’s what britishers did in India.

Please you do die Miss One man warrior (A Chudal).Jesus save this world from this Chudal warrior. Look at your fuckin current status and then talk which is nothing except Hate.

See, I knew you must have been some kind of homosexual type. I didn’t want to hurt your feelings, but that explains your comments. Only an ass pounder would think in the fashion as you. Sorry, dude I don’t swing that way. You might try the banks of your Ganges River. Since most of your women are trying to marry American men who actually have money, I can see why you might give up on that type of activity. But if you’re looking for a date–I can’t help you.

When I made the comment about the girlfriend it is a fact that the population ratio of males to females in India is 940 females for every 1000 males. That means that per every thousand men, 60 of them don’t have a female to mate with as a full-time spouse or girlfriend. So they will only have a few options—they can solicit a dirty prostitute, or become gay which involves more dirty options. Girls are so poorly treated in India that they have a low mortality rate to begin with, and for those who survive, they have an eye for American men just so they can escape from the poverty conditions of India—if they are lucky. So my comment to the frustrated commenter above is not out of context. For instance, in America there are more females from the age of 15 to 64 than there are males. Couple that to all the Russian, Indian, and Chinese women who are willing to trade their nationality for a chance to wed an American man—so to gain access to the freedoms and economic mobility of the United States—the ratio is actually higher for American men in selecting a female to mate with. So while I am sympathetic to people without those sexual options, it must be considered that it is the depravity of their economies which are the root cause of their belief in mysticism to begin with—they simply have no other option. For the poor in India dependent on a call center job stationed in America so that they can buy bread for the day—and the hottest women in their country prefers to be married to an 80-year-old American guy than to be exchanged for a goat within their village to marry some dirty, skinny, monkey-god worshiper—the resulting males have little choice than to become ass pounders or religious celibates.

Notice that the Mumbai skyline is just now starting to develop skyscrapers that have existed in America for years. Skyscrapers like profit in corporations are a direct measurement of economic success. India has done nothing to create a flourishing economy because they have mismanaged their resources for years and instead invested themselves heavily into the afterlife through mystical religions. The recent influx of economic investment is not from anything that India had done, but is because of corporations running from the high taxes of America and Europe for areas that still have good workers who will perform tasks cheaply. And in India, there are some great workers and wonderful attitudes toward enterprise. But their culture is one built on failure. I can understand the frustration that the males there have toward America-especially American men. After all it’s not their fault they were born in such a dusty armpit where women want to leave faster than rain falling during a monsoon. My problem with Lord Hanuman is that we have a current president from that part of the world who deep down inside thinks in the same way as the commenter above.

India is a third-world country stuck in ancient religions from a time when the Indus Valley was actually one of the world’s innovators. But that time has passed by and has left a very crowded country full of desperate people with little hope but to pray to a monkey-god for their redemption. When it comes down to fisticuffs sexuality always rises to the surface from a culture that has little option but to turn toward the dude next to them and ask, “hey mon—after we pray to Lord Hanuman and open up a convenient store—do you want to hook up?” Because the options are so limited in India—there really isn’t a better one. And for that, I feel sorry for them—but they made the situation for themselves by placing values in the wrong attributes socially. Their anger toward capitalism isn’t rooted in logic—but in a damaged ego that not even the Hindu gods of old can wipe away. They made the wrong decisions for their country and now they have little but dirt, foreign investment, and the sludgy Ganges River to direct their pride. That is so very sad, I almost feel bad enough not to point it out to them. But—not bad enough. India would be happier if they adopted more of the values of America—but since they haven’t, their circumstances are a direct result of their poor decisions. They might have spiritual “nirvana” but they typically only have bad things to look forward to on a daily basis, so it’s no wonder they can’t wait to die into a spiritual realm. Their life sucks.

No matter where you are in the world articles like this one are something you should pay attention to. Even though the story is a local one, gradually its contents will find you in whatever corner of the world you happen to reside. When I was a kid, Fairfield Township was one of the booming areas around the City of Cincinnati. With Jungle Jims bringing international attention to the area as one of the most unusual grocery stores in America, General Motors operating a parts plant off RT 4 and a number of other developments, Fairfield Township was the rising star of Ohio. I lived in neighboring Liberty Township and used to think the people who lived in Fairfield were rich and very lucky. Well, years of mismanagement and sheer stupidity have brought to the Township a promise of bankruptcy by 2018 unless the trustees put a 4.9 mill levy up to pay for their fire and police protection on the May 2015 ballot. Here are the numbers provided by the Journal News:

The problem stems from the fact that since 2012, the township has transferred more than $1.7 million from the general fund to the police and fire departments to cover budget shortfalls. Expenses have been outpacing revenues in both departments since 2011, Geis said. (Ken Geis,is the township’s interim administrator.)

Police expenses, including salaries and equipment, were just short of $3 million in 2013, while revenues were about $2.2 million. The fire department had similar figures in 2013, Geis said. The township transferred about $350,000 from the general fund in 2012 for the fire department, $1.1 million in 2013 for fire and police combined and about $300,000 so far this year for the police department.

The township’s finances are strong now, with a Aa2 bond rating from Moody’s, the second highest rating possible and an indicator of good credit risk, and a projected balance of nearly $4 million this year after expenses. However, that’s down from the 2011 balance of $6 million. Projected balances show the general fund gradually diminishing until it dips near or below $1 million in 2018.

The smart thing to do would be to restructure the contracts and staffing levels of the police and fire departments to reflect the declining community that Fairfield is. Let’s face it; Fairfield Township is not the best place to live anymore. It is mired with the same types of challenges that most big cities face with a demographic population overly dependent on government services as the more self-reliant types have picked up and moved on to places where people think more the way they do. It was easy to keep adding fire departments as part of a gigantic international labor union and expect massive wages for mostly sitting around all day doing nothing while Fairfield Township was experiencing its economic boom that lasted for several decades during the 60s through the 80s. It’s not like the roughly 18,000 residents around Fairfield Township were having houses burn down every day. There is the occasional arson case, the occasional pot bust, and domestic violence calls that come when you put stupid young people with no money and addictions to alcohol in conflict together near a bowling alley—but other than those issues, Fairfield Township is grossly overstaffed with police and fire department employees—and the trustees know that the fight to reduce those positions will likely be more unpopular than filing bankruptcy—which is just fine with the labor unions behind the police and fire departments. For instance, the Township in the fourth quarter of 2014 hired Lawrence Barbiere to replace Jack Grove as the township law director. Guess what, Grove was charging the township for his services–$315 per hour. Barbiere only charges $150 per hour. If the trustees look at their fire department and police payrolls they will see a lot of officers pushing over $100,000 per year with their overtime roll-overs. Those employees should be cut—or put on a RIF so that newer—cheaper employees could be implemented so not to force residents to vote for a tax increase. You can still have your police and fire departments sitting on the side of the road playing on the internet all day—but at least they’ll be there if some delusional drug addict has a bad drug bust or ends up burning down their home to collect insurance money so to pay off their gambling debts.

But of course the fire department will inflate their numeric needs because it must always be remembered; they are an international labor union first—servants of the local citizens second. Chief Matt Fruchey said this of the trustees decision for a tax increase in May—“I am very pleased that the trustees have aligned with our assessment of current and future needs of the township.” What that means is that Fruchey believes staffing levels need to be increased to some magic number consistent with the number of people living in the area. Increasingly Fairfield Township is filled with people like Barbara Holland who said to the Today’s Pulse newspaper that she’s not worried about her taxes, as her property is not of a great monetary value. “They’re (trustees) going to really have to get out there and push this….it’s the people with these big houses that are going to fight it.” So essentially what Barbara said is that she wants the services of the police and fire without paying for it, and wants wealth redistribution from those “big houses” to give her community resources that she isn’t equally contributing to.

It is that kind of mentality that tells the money to leave Fairfield Township because the trustees failed to protect them from people like Barbara Holland and Chief Matt Fruchey. Fruchey knows that his guys need a few more players in their Call of Duty network down at the firehouse, so he’s protecting their interests by exploiting the stupid in Fairfield Township. So guess what happens, the people in those big houses get up and leave Fairfield Township and move next door to Liberty and West Chester where personal wealth and property value is still appreciated somewhat leaving the community who just passed the high tax rates filled with people like Barbara, and without people in those big houses. Guess what happens to the revenue stream of a community when value leaves and poor value stays? The community dies.

Yet in a different newspaper Barbara Holland spoke a different note about the upcoming levy when the trustees split the vote on a May ballot or a November vote during a special Friday meeting on January 23rd. Suddenly Holland stated to the Enquirer that “I think you need to have another town meeting roundtable. Tonight was not informative. I’m going to be cutting something out if this goes through.” So in one paper Holland doesn’t care about the tax, the next she’s undecided. What is going on is that the trustees know they have to come up with more money to pay for the police and fire services and they don’t want the pain of lawsuits if they force staff reductions to balance the books. Wishy washy residents like Holland they need to speak out in favor of the levy to put peer pressure into the community to support the next levy—they just can’t decide when the best numbers will be that will work toward their advantage. These are the decisions of a declining community—because no matter what the trustees do, failure will follow. If they pass a tax increase more money will leave the township for friendlier districts. If they don’t pass the tax increase the international unions connected to the fire and police departments will put the screws down on the trustees in ways they aren’t equipped to deal with financially or emotionally. So either way, Fairfield Township loses and will further go down in value. There will become more residents like Barbara Holland demanding more taxes on properties of little value and less in those “big houses” who will pay a lot more just because people like Holland ended up voting for the increase.

The same struggles are coming to your front door dear reader. It’s just a matter of time.

“To give working families a fair shot, we’ll still need more employers to see beyond next quarter’s earnings and recognize that investing in their workforce is in their company’s long-term interest. We still need laws that strengthen rather than weaken unions, and give American workers a voice.” That is the advice of a knuckle dragging idiot whose entire world view was shaped by marijuana cigarettes, Marxists college professors and a parade of communists who wanted to screw his promiscuous white mother. Well, that idiot has been president of the United States now for a few years and even with the hard lessons about how socialism does not work, and managed economies by government infusion of their bureaucratic tendrils stifles creative enterprise instead of feeding it—Barack Obama still says really stupid things like that about labor unions.

Union membership in the United States fell to an all-time low in 2014, according to a government report released just days after President Barack Obama called for new laws to strengthen unions during his State of the Union speech. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the union membership rate was 11.1 percent last year, down 0.2 percent from the rate seen in 2012 and 2013. This trend is part of a growing realization about unions in America and the kind of rhetoric uttered by major left leaning progressives like Obama and his personal friend Richard Trumka—that the concept of a labor union is right out of the pages of Karl Marx. Labor unions are essentially anti-American, anti-capitalism, and immoral toward positive growth toward productive enterprise.

The BLS report reveals that union membership is increasingly a thing of the past for most Americans, and is a status mostly relegated to government workers—which needs to be made illegal. The union membership rate for the public sector was 35.7 percent, and was just 6.6 percent in the private sector. As of last year, there were 14.6 million people working in unions.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez picked up on this point, and noted that the BLS report showed that weekly wages for union workers were significantly higher than wages for non-union workers. Union workers saw a median weekly wage of $970 in 2014, while the median wage for non-union workers was $763.

Well……………….Tom, Barry, and Richard T and all the other slack-jawed old hippies and social parasites who utter such ridiculous nonsense with the wit of a cockroach—the reason labor unions are failing is because that $10,000 dollars per year difference in pay that union workers typically make above non-union workers is sapped directly out of the profit formula that most businesses need to exist. While the communist in people like Barak Obama, and Tom Perez point to the CEOs of various corporations and declare that they should give back their high salaries and bonus checks to “the people” of the “middle class” they forget that it takes leaders to drive companies and the workers toward profitability in the first place. Under the philosophy of Karl Marx the “workers” typically left to their own devices are often uninspired toward productive enterprise and are easily out produced by the rest of the world. Yet they command salaries that are higher for less work. That doesn’t make any sense and is the direct cause of why union membership is down.

If labor unions attached to government positions were made illegal that would go a long way toward solving many budget problems in the United States. The private sector has had to learn the hard way—yet the government sector workers have no reason to change their behavior from their point of view. They can now vote themselves raises as labor unions protect them from reality leaving the only option to eliminating their corrosive influence is to cut the positions all together. As Obama lectures that CEOs should distribute their bonus checks to the “middle class” he runs off to a golf outing on the tax payer funded Air Force One to live as if he were the king Jayavarman II of the Khmer Empire presiding over the majestic Angkor monuments. The drunkenness of power upon Obama’s mind is purely funded by tax payer looting provided to him through an army of union driven thugs at his feet providing support so long as they get that marginal pay increase just for belonging to a federal labor union. Labor unions attached to government work of any kind invites corruption of the highest order and are the root cause of the inflated tax payer funded budgets demanding reforms that never come.

Most of the time workers are not worth that $10,000 difference in pay that Tom Perez is talking about because the laws of a free market economy were ignored. The value is artificial and focused on the worker instead of the net result of the product produced by the endeavor demanded—which is a fatal flaw in thinking. Only government workers who get paid for showing up at a desk without the expectation of doing any real work, like Obama and Perez, could conclude such a ridiculous proposal—that companies function as ignorantly as they, and pay employees for unproductive work at values that are unreasonably high. In government when they need more money, they just raise taxes. So they assume in the private sector that the cost of goods and services can do the same to cover their margins. But it doesn’t work that way. When the world is competing with a global economy where many workers in those far away lands are doing work for $1 to $2 per day, its hard for the worker in the middle of Tennessee to justify their existence toward productivity when they expect to make over 100 times that amount for the same work.

This blind support for labor unions comes from people who have no idea how the world really works. They have been bred in a government backed vacuum to believe that jobs are created with tax payer money and that results are never to be expected. In many ways Obama is very much like the king Jayavarman II who started an empire in the region of Cambodia around 802 AD by declaring himself king of the world sticking a penis shaped rock in a slotted stone and asking the gods to give him immortal power. To prove he and his subsequent rulers were truly divinely led, they built all the monuments popular to the region—such as Angkor Wat. But guess what, they weren’t immortal or divinely influenced. They were just men who rose and fell within a few centuries of their climb to power. And so it will be for all government workers and their inflated wages they demand. Their large houses, boats, and lavish vacations paid for by the tax payers will be consumed and cast back to ruin the moment their lives are snuffed out by fate—and nobody will remember their efforts. Only through productivity does the work of ones enterprise live on in some fashion of immortality. No matter how much people like Obama take and give away—the value of what is looted is what suffers. What is taken is productivity and without it an entity dies one hundred percent of the time. That is why union membership is down. Soon, it will only be government workers who will be in them and the next great crises will be when people not in a union are asked to pay for more taxes to justify those in government still in unproductive unions. But the sympathy won’t be there. It’s already fading fast—especially after the scandals within the IRS over the last few years.

It’s only a matter of time before those union memberships decline as well. Because there is no longer sympathy for the unionized slug who expects to get paid for sitting around all day doing very little. The reason is not so much because of the money—it’s because of the effort. America as a nation was a productive place driven by capitalism. Without that productive edge against the rest of the world, Americans feel “average” and nobody likes that. The only way to be a winner is to out-produce your rivals around the globe, and the only way to do that is to do better. A union slug won’t be motivated to do better because they get paid regardless of the work performed. So it will be that aspect to their complacency which will eventually do them in. More union workers is a guarantee to have less work done at a higher cost—and that is not a recipe for success. People, no matter where they come from expect success—yet the labor unions work against that desire in ways that are happily putting them out of business.

Issue 2 in Butler County, Ohio failed but the facts behind it are still important. Click here to find out why teachers in public schools should be armed with guns!

Get your first month free at:

Type "Overmanwarrior's Wisdom" in the redemption code to start your membership. Don't shoot a firearm in self-defense without first being a member. Protect yourself from legal hacks, predator politicians, and neurotic activists. The bad guys aren't just the people who want to kill you, its the people making a living off tragedy as well.

The Vast Literature of Rich Hoffman

Author of Tail of the Dragon, The Symposium of Justice and The Curse of Fort Seven Mile as well as millions of words on Overmanwarrior's Wisdom covering advanced science, history, politics and all manner of human endeavor. (CLICK HERE)

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. If you like anything here, be sure to pass it along to a friend.

Want the second printed release!

Rick Stevens builds the car of his dreams and wreaks havoc in what will become the greatest car chase in history. The car chase becomes a journey of self-discovery and new found romance as a gauntlet of guns, missiles, and the might of the military wait for him at the finish line.

The Making of ‘Tail of the Dragon” the novel

Watch video from 20,000 miles of motorcycle travel and a radio interview with Rich Hoffman by Matt Clark

Or you can have ‘Secrets of the Demons’ as a traditional paperback

Cliffhanger takes the reader to places they are too terrified to consider

Book Four of ‘The Curse of Fort Seven Mile’

Evil is amok through the police departments, school houses and every political crevice of Fort Seven Mile. Labor unions, secret societies and drug cartels are revealing their deep plans constructed by a global menace; “The System” to unleash complete control over the human race. An era of chaos seems poised to unleash hopelessness into every home throughout the world, except for the emergence of a curse that refuses to submit.

Part Three of ‘The Curse of Fort Seven Mile’

The Los Ebola drug cartel is executing a young woman as part of a sinister plan to enact terrorism, drug addiction, and social unrest through-out America.

Wisdom of the Month

Wisdom of the Month

READ PART TWO OF ‘THE CURSE OF FORT SEVEN MILE’

Made popular through controversy, the title 'Latte Sipping Prostitutes' is about the secret forces driving every community. CLICK THE PICTURE to learn more

The ‘Curse of Fort Seven Mile’ Part One

Click the picture to step behind the veil. What you'll discover will change your view of the world forever!

Bring “Justice” to your life. Find out more about it at Goodreads!

There is a difference between capitalism and corporatism. Capitalism and the free market allow for competition to take place and new ideas to flourish. Corporatism seeks to control everything. Lately, […]